[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew
grol33 at gmail.com
Thu May 22 06:15:04 EDT 2014
Thank you for your kind words!
Actually these posts are preparations for writing the book I conceived
years ago. I am a bit lazy and posting is a good way to build up content
bit by bit. Also gives me the opportunity to correct all the nasty little
errors in my posts. The aim of my book will not be to dramatically
change current pratices but to generalize the case based conventions and
logics enabling expansion into new areas and fairy types. There are still
retroists who believe that retro-strategy just means "mutually exclusive
My original intent was to write a book on "a posteriori" logic, the
fuzziest of logical species, but I soon found there is no point writing
about the mountain top while there is no route to climb it. Now I do hope
to deliver all the required equipment, including a Sherpa guide - if not on
I'd still appreciate some more critical comments from the community though.
There is always choice in basic premises and there are lots of outposts yet
unvisited. One of the nicest challenges is not to apply retro-theory to
existing fairy types but to invent new fairy types fertile for retro
composition (I know of one created for this purpose but forgot its name).
These types need not deviate much from orthodox chess, small changes to
castling or e.p. rules already open up new vistas. Andrew has shown what
can be done with the inclusion of DR (dead reckoning) which is still
orthodox. Nobody noticed, but one of my prize winning retros (involving 3R)
is incorrect under the DR directive. Roberto's MDR (minimum deviation of
the rules) is in need of updates after the last amendments in FIDE laws,
but it can also profit immensely by the application of the standard
retro-strategy and retro-variant logics - instead of its internal
substitutes. And then there is the interesting task of rewriting Turnbulls
"abominable problems" article into a 21st century version with workable
conventions and logics. The author sins against his own conventions which
is always a sign that something is not straight there. These are just a few
examples of things to investigate and discuss and I predict this will
generate intriguing new issues. Hopefully one day we can leave the
returning discussions on "castling rights" and "repetitions" behind us
(fascinating as they are).
Best wishes, Guus Rol.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:
> Thank you very much for a fascinating read!
> I certainly did not appreciate the complexity of the matter, and I really
> appreciate your taking the time to detail these issues.
> I hope this is not a dumb question, but I'll ask anyway:
> Have you ever written a book on Retros? Because, I think I'd really love
> to read it -- especially if you help lead readers through the more complex
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>> I agree, the "static" metarule should apply to all rights evaluations,
>> including e.p., castling and all the attributes we don't know about yet in
>> the fairy types that are yet to be invented.
>> 3R is the most complex of retro-active properties in the Orthodox field,
>> since an enormous amount of information bits may be required to record all
>> the possible diagrams + plus their counters which may be relevant
>> for future play. 50M is much easier, one counter tells all there is to know.
>> Fortunately, this is where the retro-logics come into play. The
>> (chosen) logic allows us to make simplified assumptions about the "real
>> world" (an imagined real world) . Nobody uses the "consequent
>> retro-variants" from one of my previous posts since handling all histories
>> is practically undoable..In fact, almost all diagrams have a history where
>> the diagram position is an automatic draw. Zero options left to reach a
>> goal. There is however nothing wrong with the basic path splitter
>> of prA-logic - only maximized combinations of preferred retro-active
>> conditions - when solving retro-problems. With regard to 50M and 3R it
>> means we preferably assume the last move was a capture or Pawn move. Thus
>> we do not run the risk of colliding into these rules by surprise. If such
>> an assumptions is not legal we minimize as close to this assumption as
>> For the 3R case things can remain complicated as one or more full
>> diagrams may still need to be included in the "positional information". In
>> actual retro-problems the situation simplifies further since we can
>> eliminate all but one past(s) for which the problem solution is the same.
>> Only when a particular past collides with a particular solution, one is
>> required to generate a second branch and a second solution. This is how we
>> arrive at the partial retro-variants. You can e.g. see how this works in my
>> own problem R309 in Probleemblad (I think 2007). Though it is not to be
>> solved by retro-vartiants, the solution shows how and why this could have
>> been a prA-type diagram with relevant 3R attributes. The reason I object to
>> prA is not for its principles but because prA in de Codex was reduced to
>> handling cases instead of giving it status as a generic logic.
>> Justification. Why is it justified to reduce the history tree a priori in
>> prA/retro-variant type problems? Well, mainly because it is in line with
>> basic convention pholosiophy. By allowing you a license to castle, it says
>> you need not solve the diagram history without castling rights. So why
>> require it without necessity when 2 or more retro-active attributes are
>> involved? The second point is the concept that retro-variants are not
>> merely created to reflect different histories, but to demonstrate different
>> forward solutions. Every solution corresponds with a whole class of diagram
>> histories, there is no point in listing them individually. In some cases
>> the sharing of solutions between different histories will be considered a
>> defect but such judgement is on a higher level than discussed here.
>> Best wishes, Guus Rol.
>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Thanks Guus,
>>> I agree that units awaiting rebirth should be treated as a "static" and
>>> independent feature of the position (read: as bits of information necessary
>>> to characterize a position), regardless whether those rebirths can be
>>> But, the same should be said of castling rights (or licenses) --
>>> regardless whether castling can be executed.
>>> I also agree that you can derive the minimal set of information
>>> (required to characterize any position) from a simulated branching analysis
>>> of all possible games, but once established, no part of that independent
>>> "static" information can be excluded from the comparison, in establishing
>>> You can not do branch-analysis on the fly, from any diagram position, to
>>> create a new minimal set of information criteria (the minimal set of
>>> information must be capable of describing every possible position).
>>> In this informational approach, repetition implies nothing more than
>>> an exact match, spanning every single bit of information, from this minimal
>>> set necessary to describe any position.
>> Retros mailing list
>> Retros at janko.at
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Retros